Ireland is a pretend football country

Fr Tod Umptious

Strumms wrote: »

Yes I agree. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING right about it from a football perspective for having it there.

It’s pure and simply politics.... you’d have to wonder what was the catalyst for it. Fifa haven’t given too much of a fûck about football in the Middle East, so were they leaned on by the US ?

The same US that came second to Qatar to host WC 2022 ?

I somehow doubt it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Strumms wrote: »

2026, another political shîtshow thanks to FIFA...CANADA, MEXICO, USA....

US already hosted a fantastic World Cup. Canada has the infrastructure and facilities...

Yet the dîckheads in FIFA are burdening the football loving public, by hosting a tournament over two continents and three country’s instead of a country...scandalous and shows how completely out of touch they are with the average supporters of the sport they are supposed to be the gate keepers of...

Mexico City to Edmonton is about an 8 hour flight. Do supporters get compensated ? Nobody is hardly going to be able to follow their side around from venue to venue.... an 8 hour flights .. DUBLIN to Chicago is about 8 hours, that return flight 500 quid minimum... FIFA are such a shower of pricks it’s untrue, just political, trying to keep the politics of life massaged, happy.

Football and football supporters are the priority, not greasing the wheels of world politics. Pathetic.

I’m not of the mind as an Irish fan if we qualified to go, i was there in ‘94 but fûck that.

2026 is a 48 team tournament, up from the current 32.

Even though the US would be able to host it themselves it would still be a stretch so getting Mexico and Canada involved is not a bad idea.

As for the travel times, well the only way a team will be playing one game in Mexico the other in Edmonton is if they get deep in the tournament.

The group games are going to be regional and I'd bet the second round will be also as much as possible, and beyond that the number of venues will be reduced to the major cities as is usually the case so it's unlikely Edmonton would be still used at that stage.

Fandymo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2026 is a 48 team tournament, up from the current 32.

Even though the US would be able to host it themselves it would still be a stretch so getting Mexico and Canada involved is not a bad idea.

As for the travel times, well the only way a team will be playing one game in Mexico the other in Edmonton is if they get deep in the tournament.

The group games are going to be regional and I'd bet the second round will be also as much as possible, and beyond that the number of venues will be reduced to the major cities as is usually the case so it's unlikely Edmonton would be still used at that stage.

I’d also think that a bigger spread of cities means a bigger spread of fans will get to see the games.

partyguinness

Call me old fashioned but I want to WC to go back to being a 24 team tournament and held in Mexico everytime.

At this rate you may as well have one huge tournament over 2 years and forget about qualifying altogether.

fryup

NIMAN wrote: »

I salute the Irish football team, they have taken this boycott thing seriously, not trying a leg in their 2 games so far.

yes Stephen Kenny is a great humanitarian

randd1

partyguinness wrote: »

Call me old fashioned but I want to WC to go back to being a 24 team tournament and held in Mexico everytime.

At this rate you may as well have one huge tournament over 2 years and forget about qualifying altogether.

I have no problem with it going to a 48 team tournament, mostly because there's a better chance we might make it, but because there's actually 1 more round of knockout games.


It's like the Champions League/Europa League last year, the one game knockout format was more exciting than the two leg affairs of normal years.


It's the one-off winner takes games that make tournaments exciting.

Snickers Man

trashcan wrote: »

N Pats are my team, in a way that Man U or Liverpool could never be. I “followed” Man City as a kid, cos that’s what you did, you picked your English team. I slowly came to realise, they had nothing to do with me. When I started going regularly to Richmond it all fell into place.

Nail on the head!!! I supported an English team as a kid too. Not one of the eternally popular ones (United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea/Leeds) but I felt I had to be a little different.

I don't any more. I've wised up.

trashcan wrote: »

The League of Ireland doesn’t have the money, the glamour, or the standard of play of the Premier League in England, but you can still see highly entertaining matches, and above all, it’s your team.

I lived in England for 10 years. People there, at the time (1980s) anyway supported their local teams. I knew people who supported teams like Crystal Palace, Charlton Athletic, Millwall even Shrewsbury Town (yeah, really) and Bath City (non league) and did so fanatically. Season ticket holders. Feeling every frustration and elation as appropriate.

There's no GAA for English people; so they support their local soccer teams instead. It's the same thing, really. Like you say: "It's your team"

None of them are "our teams". We're interlopers. Posers. Charlatans. By all means admire another team when they're playing well but spare us the "Unoited till I die!" rhetoric. (Or Liverpool, or Arsenal or Chelsea....it's the same point)

And don't pretend to care about the Irish national team, if all your emotional energy and not a little of your money goes to support one of the foreign behemoths. There was a time when the best English teams fostered and nurtured young Irish talent but no more.

Think back to the watershed moment in English football that probably did most to change the game in that country for ever: The Hillsborough disaster. An FA Cup semifinal between the teams that would finish second (on goal difference) and third in the top division that year. Five "Irish" players in the starting line ups. Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Ray Houghton, John Aldridge and .....Tommy Gaynor.

You don't see that any more.
1) The big clubs can take or leave the FA Cup and often they choose to leave it.
2) An Irish born player (Gaynor) playing with a top five club but who was never capped? The very idea nowadays!!
3) If you're watching a match with five Irish players on the park, it's either in the Championship or it's a Premiership relegation six pointer.

swimming in a sea

I like the 2 leg tie knockout, 1 off tie is exciting but more likely to have a fluke result and the excitement of a second leg tie with all or nothing element of the away goal.

Fr Tod Umptious

randd1 wrote: »

I have no problem with it going to a 48 team tournament, mostly because there's a better chance we might make it, but because there's actually 1 more round of knockout games.


It's like the Champions League/Europa League last year, the one game knockout format was more exciting than the two leg affairs of normal years.


It's the one-off winner takes games that make tournaments exciting.

Not really
Only 3 of the new 12 places to to UEFA

partyguinness

Snickers Man wrote: »

Nail on the head!!! I supported an English team as a kid too. Not one of the eternally popular ones (United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea/Leeds) but I felt I had to be a little different.

I don't any more. I've wised up.



I lived in England for 10 years. People there, at the time (1980s) anyway supported their local teams. I knew people who supported teams like Crystal Palace, Charlton Athletic, Millwall even Shrewsbury Town (yeah, really) and Bath City (non league) and did so fanatically. Season ticket holders. Feeling every frustration and elation as appropriate.

There's no GAA for English people; so they support their local soccer teams instead. It's the same thing, really. Like you say: "It's your team"

None of them are "our teams". We're interlopers. Posers. Charlatans. By all means admire another team when they're playing well but spare us the "Unoited till I die!" rhetoric. (Or Liverpool, or Arsenal or Chelsea....it's the same point)

And don't pretend to care about the Irish national team, if all your emotional energy and not a little of your money goes to support one of the foreign behemoths. There was a time when the best English teams fostered and nurtured young Irish talent but no more.

Think back to the watershed moment in English football that probably did most to change the game in that country for ever: The Hillsborough disaster. An FA Cup semifinal between the teams that would finish second (on goal difference) and third in the top division that year. Five "Irish" players in the starting line ups. Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Ray Houghton, John Aldridge and .....Tommy Gaynor.

You don't see that any more.
1) The big clubs can take or leave the FA Cup and often they choose to leave it.
2) An Irish born player (Gaynor) playing with a top five club but who was never capped? The very idea nowadays!!
3) If you're watching a match with five Irish players on the park, it's either in the Championship or it's a Premiership relegation six pointer.

I "followed" English football in my teens like pretty much everyone but I also went to Cork City games 8-9 times a season for years. Now I do not follow any team. Living in England why the eff should I give a crap about Liverpool, ManU or Luton Town? I don't.

What affiliation do I have with multi million pound young lads in their 20s that I will never know or meet? None.

These clubs are a corporate business in the business of making money and gouging as much money as possible. I for one would feel like a right mug handing over my hard earned cash to fuel this circus. No thanks, not for me.

I have often been asked in England "Who do you support?" I just say "No team" much to their surprise and then I would get "Sure I thought every Irish person supported Celtic and Liverpool/Man U etc" Large grain of truth in that but I say "No. But I follow my local team in Ireland".

I can go to a live game every weekend if I wanted but I don't- there is no novelty, it's over priced and generally it's a bit crap.

I die a little inside when I come home for Christmas and the PL is on all the TV screens in the local pub/restaurant or even darts. At home the sisters have Coronation Street on. No wonder the English ask "Sure what's the difference between England and Ireland?"

Two Christmasses ago Munster and Leinster were playing on one channel and these goons started roaring at the barman to turn over to Liverpool V Arsenal and give over the rugby ****e...I died some more.

Omackeral

partyguinness wrote: »

I die a little inside when I come home for Christmas and the PL is on all the TV screens in the local pub/restaurant or even darts. At home the sisters have Coronation Street on. No wonder the English ask "Sure what's the difference between England and Ireland?"

Two Christmasses ago Munster and Leinster were playing on one channel and these goons started roaring at the barman to turn over to Liverpool V Arsenal and give over the rugby ****e...I died some more.

Had the misfortune of being in a pub for FA Cup Final day for Man United City vs Wigan and the lads going mad at the bar man to turn down ''that Brit sh*te'' when God Save the Queen came on. Newsflash lads, it's a British cup with British teams... it's gonna have a British anthem.

dan1895

Their mind's must be blown when they see a Union Jack with Man Utd across it.

Fr Tod Umptious

dan1895 wrote: »

Their mind's must be blown when they see a Union Jack with Man Utd across it.

Their minds must have been blown when they saw Man City standing for God Save the Queen instead of Man Utd that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_FA_Cup_Final

Feenix

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2026 is a 48 team tournament, up from the current 32.

Even though the US would be able to host it themselves it would still be a stretch so getting Mexico and Canada involved is not a bad idea.

As for the travel times, well the only way a team will be playing one game in Mexico the other in Edmonton is if they get deep in the tournament.

The group games are going to be regional and I'd bet the second round will be also as much as possible, and beyond that the number of venues will be reduced to the major cities as is usually the case so it's unlikely Edmonton would be still used at that stage.

There's no difference to the amount of games that are played though due to 3 team groups. Farcical set up having it across a whole continent. There's also talk of group games that end in a draw going to a penalty shoot out.

Say Your Number

The World Cup was something I always looked forward to, but those greedy bastards have destroyed it by expanding it, don't think I can summon the enthusiasm to watch some glorified pub teams get beat by double digits.

Fr Tod Umptious

Say Your Number wrote: »

The World Cup was something I always looked forward to, but those greedy bastards have destroyed it by expanding it, don't think I can summon the enthusiasm to watch some glorified pub teams get beat by double digits.

The 48 team world cup is 5 years away.
You've plenty of time to make up your mind.

I’ll pick it up like the champions league or European championships in or around the quarter or semi finals like always. It’s the only soccer outside my own that I’d watch.

trashcan

I’ve always watched as much of every World Cup as I can, but 48 teams ? That’s just not right. Even if it does give Ireland more of a chance of making it. 16 is too small in this day and age, 24 doesn’t really work mathematically, so 32 is the absolute limit of where it should be.

Did you smash it

Irish people against an expanded World Cup. I never follow that logic. I have my suspicions whether it’s a viewpoint informed by English media opinion who know they’ll qualify anyway.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Did you smash it wrote: »

Irish people against an expanded World Cup. I never follow that logic. I have my suspicions whether it’s a viewpoint informed by English media opinion who know they’ll qualify anyway.

Ireland usually don't deserve to qualify.

Yurt2

trashcan wrote: »

I’ve always watched as much of every World Cup as I can, but 48 teams ? That’s just not right. Even if it does give Ireland more of a chance of making it. 16 is too small in this day and age, 24 doesn’t really work mathematically, so 32 is the absolute limit of where it should be.

The worst part about it is that the World Cup is now doomed to silly co-hosting arrangements from here on in. Gone will be the days of classic tournaments held in one country like France 98.

Feenix

Did you smash it wrote: »

Irish people against an expanded World Cup. I never follow that logic. I have my suspicions whether it’s a viewpoint informed by English media opinion who know they’ll qualify anyway.

Why? Its the same amount of teams that qualify from Europe as far as I know. I dont like the 24 team Euros either, completely devalues it. Not sure what being Irish or from anywhere else has to do with it. I'd say the viewpoint is formed from people who grew up watching the best teams in the world play out 4 team groups like it should be and not wanting to watch 3 team groups play in a Corporate carnival. It used to be the greatest show on earth.

Did you smash it

Feenix wrote: »

Why? Its the same amount of teams that qualify from Europe as far as I know. I dont like the 24 team Euros either, completely devalues it. Not sure what being Irish or from anywhere else has to do with it. I'd say the viewpoint is formed from people who grew up watching the best teams in the world play out 4 team groups like it should be and not wanting to watch 3 team groups play in a Corporate carnival. It used to be the greatest show on earth.

Its an extra 3 teams qualifying from uefa. So an extra 5.5% UEFA countries will qualify. If it’s expanded Ireland has a better chance of going. I don’t much care about expansion devaluing the tournament. I want to see Ireland play in world cups. So does every other Irish football fan. Yet for some reason they think they’re entitled to get uppity about an expanded tournament.

Germany, England and Spain can afford to be uppity about an expanded World Cup.

For the likes of Ireland it’s good news. If we qualify to 2026 we won’t be moaning about it.

DrSerious3

randd1 wrote: »

I have no problem with it going to a 48 team tournament, mostly because there's a better chance we might make it, but because there's actually 1 more round of knockout games.


It's like the Champions League/Europa League last year, the one game knockout format was more exciting than the two leg affairs of normal years.


It's the one-off winner takes games that make tournaments exciting.

But where do you draw the line? It will probably br a 64-team tournament in my lifetime. Completely devalues qualification and fills the tournament with teams not good enough to be there.

Lost Ormond

DrSerious3 wrote: »

But where do you draw the line? It will probably br a 64-team tournament in my lifetime. Completely devalues qualification and fills the tournament with teams not good enough to be there.

Its not going to double in size in that short a time.
There already is many teams not good enough to be there but do so because of the continent they happen to be from and there will always be teams not good enough if you base qualification on a regional basis

fryup

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Ireland usually don't deserve to qualify.

the only way we qualified for the last euro's was because it was expanded to 24 teams

breezy1985

Did you smash it wrote: »

Irish people against an expanded World Cup. I never follow that logic. I have my suspicions whether it’s a viewpoint informed by English media opinion who know they’ll qualify anyway.

I want Ireland to qualify by deserving it. Not like the Euros where we can come last in the Nations League group and still get a shot.
Also and I think this is the most important and often overlooked aspect of tournaments is the idea that every round should eliminate 50% of participants.

Greyfox

DrSerious3 wrote: »

But where do you draw the line? It will probably br a 64-team tournament in my lifetime. Completely devalues qualification and fills the tournament with teams not good enough to be there.

I hope it does get to 64 teams, nothing worse than having a world cup with good teams missing out

breezy1985

Greyfox wrote: »

I hope it does get to 64 teams, nothing worse than having a world cup with good teams missing out

Which teams in the 32 to 64 bracket would you call good.

If we go down that route let's just stop having qualifiers and run it like the FA cup and go all in. The odd giant killing like England 94 or Netherlands 02 are the only real point to qualifiers for the neutral

Greyfox

breezy1985 wrote: »

If we go down that route let's just stop having qualifiers and run it like the FA cup and go all in. The odd giant killing like England 94 or Netherlands 02 are the only real point to qualifiers for the neutral

To be honest the qualifiers arent all that exciting anyway. In the last world cup Italy and Holland missed out, I dont think they should run the risk of something like that happening again.